Could a Vermont lawyer prepare estate documents for customers of a financial-planning company that gathered information and paid the lawyer?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A company selling securities and insurance proposed collecting customer information and deciding what estate-planning documents might accompany its products. It would send the information to a lawyer to prepare any needed documents and pay that lawyer. The lawyer expected little direct customer contact.
The committee concluded that the lawyer's participation may facilitate unauthorized practice because the company proposed an estate plan before the lawyer reviewed the matter. It said the arrangement might constitute impermissible fee sharing if the fee was for drafting documents and was shared with the company.
If the fee instead paid for financial products, the opinion said the arrangement may violate the rule on payment of legal fees by a person other than the client. It also identified a conflict: the customer's interest might favor comparing competing products while the company paying the lawyer sold its own products. The committee referred to its earlier Opinion 91-12 on the difficulty of separating business advice from legal services.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history says the Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the Code and applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999; the court later made comprehensive amendments in 2009. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement.
Common questions
Q: Why did the committee raise unauthorized practice?
A: The company would gather information and propose an estate plan before the lawyer reviewed the matter; the committee said lawyer participation may facilitate unauthorized practice.
Q: Did the opinion conclusively find fee sharing?
A: It said the arrangement might be impermissible fee sharing if the fee paid for drafting legal documents and was shared with the company.
Q: What concern arose from the company paying the lawyer?
A: The committee said payment for legal services to the company’s customers could implicate DR 5-107 and create a conflict over advice about competing financial products.
Background and rules framework
The opinion discussed former Code DR 3-101 on aiding unauthorized practice, DR 3-102 on sharing legal fees with nonlawyers, and DR 5-107 on third-party payment and interference with a lawyer’s professional judgment.
Citations and references
Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility:
- DR 3-101, DR 3-102, DR 5-107
Other opinions cited:
- Vermont Opinion 91-12; Oregon State Bar Legal Ethics Committee Opinion 523 (3/89)
See also
- Vermont Ethics Op. 98-08: Investment adviser referral fee
- Vermont Ethics Op. 79-16: Lawyer as title insurance agent
Source
- Landing page: VBA conflict of interest opinions
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 94-01
- Rules history: Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1994. Ezel checks the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace